Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Assume I am 'Fi'

  1. #1
    jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,069
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Assume I am 'Fi'

    If people assumed that I am 'Fi,' this is how they would interpret me:

    "Socionics leaves something to be desired. People simply do not fit into these preconceived boxes."

    OR

    "Socionics is basically pigeonholing people. And people should not be pigeonholed. Therefore, in reality, socionics is much more complicated."

    However, that is in fact NOT what I am saying.

    This is what I AM saying:

    "Why are there 16 boxes, instead of 32 or 64 - or even 57? Why exactly 16?"

    Also:

    "Why do people fit into those exact 16 boxes in that exact way?"

    Also:

    "Why boxes? Why doesn't a spectrum suffice? Or maybe a completely different type of model?"

    That is what I am actually saying. I just suspect people interpret me as saying the first two, when that isn't anything like what I mean - or maybe even because I dislike or get offended at Se, which isn't even what the theory says...

    I would go so far as to say that the 'Fi' statements above are just diarrhea to me, if you want me to be quite frank...

    Even the stuff about ethics/morals: once again: "Why does one's logic clash with one's ethics? I'll say it again: It clashes with common sense. In that case, why does the theory assume that?"

    Therefore, I think the stuff about me being Fi - which I don't even identify with - is just rhetoric, and that's basically all there is to it...
    Last edited by jason_m; 01-01-2020 at 09:02 AM.

  2. #2
    a two horned unicorn renegade Homicidal Maniac 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    tickling your PoLR
    TIM
    ILE-H LEVF 7 so/sx
    Posts
    5,655
    Mentioned
    250 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Think of socionics as lousy lossy information packing where end result can not produce exact replica of the original - not even close.
    Next think of analog to digital converters -> you pretty much set up a cut off point between 1 and 0. Next think about symmetry. Symmetry has properties that makes things easier to grasp.
    Measuring you right now

    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type

    Your life is too short to actually do anything useful with it without being wasteful.

  3. #3
    jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,069
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Here's another one: assume in reality there is a huge number of types - but the number of types is odd. In this case, what happens with dual? Does someone not have a dual or do two types share a dual? For every person to have an exact dual, there has to be an even number of types. What is going on here then if there is an odd number? Now, apply this to my questions above...
    Last edited by jason_m; 01-01-2020 at 09:27 AM.

  4. #4
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Maizistan
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    1,426
    Mentioned
    128 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @jason_m , I assume you’re saying this in response to people who’ve quoted statements like these to indicate you’re Fi-valuing?

    I don’t know about Fi, but I think there’s plenty of indication from this thread you’re Te-valuing (or at least not Ti-valuing), which is the other side of the same coin.

    When you say “assume there is a huge number of types — but the number of types is odd”, you’re discarding the sine qua non of Socionics: that is, its reliance on Jung’s writings about the psyche. Jung’s model was complementary; Ne couldn’t exist independently Si, and so on. Even if new types were added (somehow), there would always be an even number of types. Your other questions are similar — there are 16 types, for instance, because that’s the logical number of types you’d arrive at by following Jung’s model.

    Your questions aren’t stupid (and even if they were, Ti people aren’t immune from stupidity), but they aren’t ones Ti people would be likely to ask. Once you start asking them, you’re no longer talking Socionics, and Ti is reluctant to be so imprecise.
    Last edited by FreelancePoliceman; 01-01-2020 at 09:49 PM.
    Clicks speed growth.


  5. #5
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,522
    Mentioned
    130 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Why 16? All data is comprised of associative (relative) and absolute components (2); rationalization is also either associative or absolute (2); processing is either open or closed-loop (2); and priority is either input or output oriented (2) so 2x2x2x2 = 16. Now, subtype is often mentioned, indicating an input/output imbalance which increases the possible number of categories to 48 but this does nothing but overcomplicate the perception of how data is perceived and processed. Fi indicates a type of data processing and shouldn't be related to ethics or morals - people shouldn't be pigeonholed because everyone acquires different baggage and we are what we eat, but the way a person would generically move data in and out is very likely finite.........

    a.k.a. I/O

  6. #6
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    2,750
    Mentioned
    204 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Jason, you seem to be talking about socionics as if it was some abstract thing. The number of types is in fact 16, that's just human nature. This is based on observation. Why they are 16 is hard to answer, because we don't know all the complicated evolutionary processes that has made the human mind what it is today. But Jung and Socionics give hints to the processes behind this. (the fact that we have complementary conscious/unconscious functions in the psyche for example). As Freelance said here above.

    What if the number of types is odd? But it isn't. They are even.

    People have said this before to you, but you really need to get back to basics and learn to observe the reality behind this.
    A true sense-perception certainly exists, but it always looks as though objects were not so much forcing their way into the subject in their own right as that the subject were seeing things quite differently, or saw quite other things than the rest of mankind. As a matter of fact, the subject perceives the same things as everybody else, only, he never stops at the purely objective effect, but concerns himself with the subjective perception released by the objective stimulus.
    (Jung on Si)


    My Pinterest

  7. #7
    black Uncle Ave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,591
    Mentioned
    140 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Not sure what the topic of this thread is, though, lol. Is it how your statements differ from the Fi ones or is it regarding the validity of the questions you asked regarding socionics. Because to address the "why are there 16 boxes" question, I think it's kind of arbitrary. I agree with @Tallmo that there is a reality that socionics is trying to map, so 16 was likely the best way to describe that reality - it's not absolute though.


  8. #8
    jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,069
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's really quite simple: if I was Fi, I would have to value Te and Fi. The way Ti is described is often dry, but Te even more - and I mean bone dry: banking, finance, accounting... I mean, wow, is that not interesting... Socially, Fi can be touchy-feely in a way that is sickening. Fyodore Dostoevsky would be an example. I find him sappy in a way that would shock. I also love someone who can make me laugh. Te does not do that very well. And then I wouldn't love all the ILEs I've researched and studied like Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman...

    All I can say is that occasionally, there are LSEs who are really funny and can make me laugh and there can be Delta NFs who are emotional in a mellow way that have some kind of 'chill' to them, but that is about it...
    Last edited by jason_m; 08-29-2020 at 01:52 PM.

  9. #9
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    TIM
    SEI?
    Posts
    1,918
    Mentioned
    114 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    It's really quite simple: if I was Fi, I would have to value Te and Fi. The way Ti is described is often dry, but Te even more - and I mean bone dry: banking, finance, accounting... I mean, wooh, is that not interesting... Socially, Fi can be touchy-feely in a way that is sickening. Theodore Dostoevsky would be an example. I find him sappy in a way that would shock. I also love someone who can make me laugh. Te does not do that very well. And then I wouldn't love all the ILEs I've researched and studied like Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman...

    All I can say is that occasionally, there are LSEs who can make me laugh and there can be Delta NFs who are emotional in a mellow way that have some kind of 'chill' to them, but that is about it...
    Socionics has a lot of problems. The characterizations of quadras and values and elements are pretty one dimensional. Socionics breaks with Jung in the definition of Se and Si, and maybe other elements too. I think Socionists wanted something a bit less abstract. The problem with becoming less abstract is that you start excluding valid members of an abstract category. So you end up with a bunch of caricatured descriptions that don't work too well.

    Typology is real based on my own direct experience of it. Socionics types and quadras are real. All our attempts at talking about all this stuff though is just a linguistic approximation of a nonverbal reality. You can try to point it out to someone, and if they don't get it, you just move on because it's the best you can do.

  10. #10
    jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,069
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    After reading a number of descriptions, another problem I have is this absolute *hogwash* that Fi is simply about 'good and bad' and 'ethical behaviour.' That is what I feel confused me. Fi is primarily about *human relations.* The people who have it are good at human affairs and therefore *often* ethics and morality. That does not mean that the people who value it are always ethical. For instance, because they understand human affairs, there can be people who are Fi who use it to manipulate others to get what they want - regardless of whether it is right or wrong. I can think of a number of people who fit this description - con artists, 'psychics' and other types of charlatans. There are also a ton of people who are Gamma, etc. who do unethical things in the name of business or what is 'shrewd' or 'prudent'; pollute the waters, fire people unlawfully, stab people in the back - all because it is 'shrewd' or 'practical.' And they apparently value Fi, but they do not really care about the ethical consequences of their actions. They are therefore 'ethical' functions, not ethical functions in the same way as in Holland's Code someone 'social' means that they are interested in the human professions, not necessarily a 'social butterfly.' I think that is the biggest mistake I am making and other people are making in this theory... OTOH, maybe one's definition of the functions is subjective, and at times, it can be someone ethical as Fi, but this is clearly not set in stone...

    EDIT: another reason I don't believe that Fi is equivalent to ethical behaviour is if you look at some clear examples from the Gamma quadra: Consider Phil Jackson. He is devout Buddhist with a strong ethical leaning. (His Zen beliefs are clearly Ni, and I don't see Beta as a possibility.) Now compare him to ILI Nietzsche - whoops: someone whose philosophy is (to some) complete anarchy. Now Jack Kevorkian: someone who advocated assisted-suicide, and clearly fought for human rights (whether you are on his side or not). Now consider Ayn Rand: hated religion and humanism and believed in utter selfishness as a philosophy. Which ones are Beta or Alpha here? Do you see what I mean? For instance, with her interest in business and politics, I don't see Beta as even a possibility for Rand...
    Last edited by jason_m; 08-31-2020 at 10:59 PM.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    TIM
    LSI
    Posts
    47
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aramas View Post
    Socionics breaks with Jung in the definition of Se and Si
    how?

  12. #12
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    25,416
    Mentioned
    631 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have made similar statements
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
    Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx


    I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE

    Best description of functions:
    http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html

  13. #13
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    TIM
    SEI?
    Posts
    1,918
    Mentioned
    114 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oath of solitude View Post
    how?
    Jungian Se is explicitly described as pleasure loving in the same way Socionics describes Si. Socionics Se in terms of force or willpower is absent from Jung. Jung describes Se types as basically the ultimate realists. They go by what they know, their experiences, their senses, and so on. They are realists even more than Te types.

    Socionics Se imo was a trip down a dead end and a path to nowhere. The entirety of Socionics Se can almost be thrown in the trash.

    The imposing or willful interpretation of Se is a relativistic spook that comes from an alpha disagreement on the appropriate nature of sensing. In other words, the only reason Se in Socionics is perceived as imposing or willful is the fact that the original descriptions were written by alphas. Contrary quadras are going to see opposing values as imposing.

    @jason_m I also like your post about Fi being mis-related to good and bad ethical behavior. Fi is called Fi because its true nature is introverted feeling. I think Aushra and co wanted to get away from the idea of feeling because it seems too wishy washy and sentimental to be of any value. They would rather talk about ethics because it seems to have more social importance. Go figure that Jung, an LII, realized the importance of feeling to human nature more than the Socionists did. Basically everything about Socionics Fi can be dumped lol. It's not about morality or being a good person. It's feeling from the introverted perspective. Granted, I think ILEs are evil a lot of the time, but many of them are probably fine people. I've just met many I can't stand. They come off as manipulative. And maybe many of them are. It's like instead of trying to directly communicate what they want and allowing us to come to an agreement of some kind, they want to suggest and insinuate and try to trick me into following the path they want. It's objectifying. And many of them have an attitude of "If I can, I will." And it's like a situation where that sort of thing is fair game for them, and if you fall for it you're a loser.

    MBTI actually has a more accurate understanding of Se if you regard the standard as Jung.

    Reasons why I think of myself as a typologist more than a Socionist. I take what has worked and seems right to me and throw out the garbage.
    Last edited by Aramas; 09-02-2020 at 07:05 PM.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    12,178
    Mentioned
    1115 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    People simply do not fit into these preconceived boxes.
    The typology is about that any of people stably fits to one of those boxes significantly better than in any other of them. But not that it needs to fit totally and in anything among average traits of that "box".

    > "Why are there 16 boxes, instead of 32 or 64 - or even 57?"

    Such was supposed and found as _practically useful_. For example, for psychotherapy Jung used 8 "boxes". While Socionics supposes 16 "boxes" useful to make more of good marriage pairs (this may be checked experimentally sometimes). For some applications even 2 "boxes" would be useful, as for example to what occupations people have more interests and abbilities to technical or humanitarian by T/F.
    There are many kinds of "boxifications" with different number of boxes and all of them are used only because this is thought as useful enough to do. As one of important factors, at least.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  15. #15

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    11,300
    Mentioned
    328 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    16 because a square has 4 sides. All systems operate within a squared system for sake of simplicity, the rules of the system can be boiled down to having to operate within those parameters.

    There's also 4 main seasons. Some systems add more but for simplicity sake there is 4. There's also 4 main directions. Of course there are many intricate sub-directions but we are dealing with the fundamentals here. "Pre-spring" is still spring- as you are trying to describe a lot of complex social interactions that are occurring at once. Or it's like finding a homosexual that doesn't like Kylie Minogue- most homosexuals adore her and so you can be that person that is like 'but this homosexual over here doesn't like her!' but the fact of the matter is the brain picks up patters of repetition. It does this naturally- so it's also going to simplify systems. And people, and logical concepts, and everything. Stereotypes are both harmful, and based on truth- as a way for the brain to process information. Otherwise we'd get overloaded and fry our brains.

    A system also multiplies by itself, to stay in control. Just like anything reproduces in order to have a type of immortality. 4x4 = 16.

    Types already have natural variance, just like there's a 'northwest' and 'northeast' (subtypes mb?!) instead of just an over-the-top North - but here's the thing. Sadly, people don't tend to like one another. They hate and stereotype and seek revenge. And so because of this , it's easy for people to stockpile negative traits they don't like in a type - and not treat people as individuals. You should treat me like Sam first, and an 'IEI' second (and I should give you the same respect)- but typology forum of course discourages this, just like a lot of institutional learning discourages this. We are utilizing the system to confirm our own biases when socionics should 'ideally' be used another way around, to confront them. If you don't like something, you are probably going to exaggerate its effects to deal with it.

    It is healthy for people to talk about this and (maybe it won't work, and it depends on how much they are convinced they are right) I mean this is a idealism, but it's healthy to say for example 'well I know an XXX type and they aren't as bad as you say because xyz' as usually its a thing where the Fi for Fe feels justified in its hatred or something based on personal experience. That would depend on how much people are wiling to listen and get over their own prejudices. Look at the stupid stuff we kill each other over- and yeah. its a huge idealism of course, but if we want socionics to be 'humanitarian' maybe it's worth a start.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    TIM
    LSI
    Posts
    47
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aramas View Post
    Jungian Se is explicitly described as pleasure loving in the same way Socionics describes Si. Socionics Se in terms of force or willpower is absent from Jung. Jung describes Se types as basically the ultimate realists. They go by what they know, their experiences, their senses, and so on. They are realists even more than Te types.

    Socionics Se imo was a trip down a dead end and a path to nowhere. The entirety of Socionics Se can almost be thrown in the trash.

    The imposing or willful interpretation of Se is a relativistic spook that comes from an alpha disagreement on the appropriate nature of sensing. In other words, the only reason Se in Socionics is perceived as imposing or willful is the fact that the original descriptions were written by alphas. Contrary quadras are going to see opposing values as imposing.
    I definitely agree with all of this.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    TIM
    LSI
    Posts
    47
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aramas View Post
    Jungian Se is explicitly described as pleasure loving in the same way Socionics describes Si. Socionics Se in terms of force or willpower is absent from Jung. Jung describes Se types as basically the ultimate realists. They go by what they know, their experiences, their senses, and so on. They are realists even more than Te types.

    Socionics Se imo was a trip down a dead end and a path to nowhere. The entirety of Socionics Se can almost be thrown in the trash.

    The imposing or willful interpretation of Se is a relativistic spook that comes from an alpha disagreement on the appropriate nature of sensing. In other words, the only reason Se in Socionics is perceived as imposing or willful is the fact that the original descriptions were written by alphas. Contrary quadras are going to see opposing values as imposing.
    What about Si, then?

  18. #18
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    TIM
    SEI?
    Posts
    1,918
    Mentioned
    114 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oath of solitude View Post
    What about Si, then?
    If you read the Si description, you can see that it's about as outlandish as the Ni description. It doesn't compare to Socionics Si all that well. The only thing Socionics got right was that it's the internal reaction to an external sensory stimulus that's paid attention to with Si more than the sensory stimulus itself. Jung remarks that it's impossible to know what this reaction will be because of the subjective nature of Si.

    His description of Si reminds me more of a medieval bestiary and pareidolia than anything else.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •